PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET (Jamie) (02/07/90)
> I have a couple of questions about this idea. First, Jamie, would you > allow workers to opt out of these rights? In other words, would you > permit workers to exchange the right of say-so in plant affairs for, > say, more money, or better benefits? Don't know, it would depend on the specifics, and on how it worked out. But off hand, I'd say no. You can't sell your vote in a real democracy. (But I don't mean to be dogmatic about this.) > Second, if you allow people to negotiate out of these rights, how > different is your idea from the capitalist system whereby people > could certainly negotiate their way INTO these rights. Hah! Pretty different, I'd say. Suppose you told a subject of a monarchy, Gee, your situation is not really different from that of a democratic citizen, since the democratic citizen may sell her vote, and you are free to BUY a vote, if your monarch is willing to sell.... > It is a gross oversimplification to look at the fact that major > decisions in business are made by owners, and conclude *instantly* > that workers have no say-so, or that workers are being exploited. I didn't conclude it **instantly** (I used more **, so I win. By the way, unlike >, * are a renewable resource). And you may SAY it's a gross oversimplification, but I do not think you have SHOWN it. And, speaking of gross oversimplifications.... > The *primary* reason that our businesses are not worker-owned > cooperatives is that worker-owned cooperatives are less efficient > and unprofitable than normal businesses. This is so rife with oversimplifications I don't know where to begin... First of all, are you taking it as an article of faith that the more efficient and profitable businesses survive? I imagine this would be a theorem in the Capitalist Libertarian Calculus... but only in a pure capitalist society. Right? Second, even in theory, your prediction is true only in the very long run (and here I must remind you of Keynes' most famous dictum). Third, Efficient? In what sense? Profitable? For whom???? Fourth, note the relative success of ESOPs in faltering industries (like steel). > p.s. It is my contention that a well-run business NEEDS to have > top talent in management... management that may well cost in the > millions to hire. Businesses only have NEEDS relative to a conception of their goals or purpose. Only living things have needs intrinsically (see Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics). I believe that corporations are more like states than they are like people. That's why I think democracy is a better system of "management" for them than oligarchy. (But I admit, Aristotle is on your side on this one, aristocrat that he is.) > I make no argument that any particular salary is defensible today, > except to say that whoever is paying it, must think that it is > worthwhile. So who's paying it? Since I know you are a big Ken Galbraith fan, I won't urge you to read Managerial Capitalism. Jamie